Unity in Multiplicity

Unity and multiplicity are each unavoidable, so there can be no unbreachable abyss dividing them; thus they both (seemingly paradoxically) coexist somehow, and this has to be accounted for.

The unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, holistically and in detail revolving.

The relations among the relata of substantial entities/things are more fundamental, ontologically, than the continuant things, yet, without the enduring things there can be no relations.

Totality, as all that exists as reality, has relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

Dualism (as a reality of two), as the opposites of spirit and matter, is rejected, for there can be no interpenetration/interaction of distinctly different categories. The same for Dualism’s similar extension, Pluralism, with even more distinct categories, for it, too, cannot explain unity. Processism, such as in Buddhism, is a dance without dancers, a process without agents acting. These so-called process-only occurrents cannot make it as relata. Monism, subsuming procession, such as all is in and of something like Brahman, cannot explain pluralism/diversity.

Considering the above mergers, we are left with just Monism and Pluralism. Relationalism, then, goes beyond them each, admitting both, in a balance, which empirical quality is bolstered by our experiencing each in Reality. We have brains that echo unity and multiplicity, for we can understand holistically, in parallel, as well as understand details, sequentially.

It can never really do to arbitrarily pull theories out of thin air that have no regard or grounding in our experience/knowledge of ourselves and the Cosmos.

The Theory of Relativity demonstrates the undeniable unity of reality, as the spacetime continuum, while Quantum Theory demonstrates the inescapable discrete multiplicity of plurality.

That quark-gluon interactions make for 95% of the proton’s mass shows us how much relations count. There are also wavicles proposed, with both wave- and particle-like aspects.

Neurons/neurotransmitters as individual particulars cause the global effect of consciousness of their states. Effects, especially in this case, may not always resemble their causes in their form, although matching in content.

Some quantum gravity theories strive to be relational by attempting to get rid of absolute space and time. Space was always a problem in that it had to be impossibly infinite in whatever quantity it had ascribed to it.

In the Strong Emergence thread, it was deduced that reality must be relational if there are indeed strong emergences.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

In the Pandora thread, it was deduced that the something of the Eternal Basis had to always be since something cannot come from nothing. Other names for it might be Existence, Being, The Simplest, quantum fluctuations, The Great Wheel, What Is, and more.

It is powerless over its being as an existent because it has no beginning, and so it is unavoidable, with no option, and no input to its direction, seeming to make it that anything and everything possible could become of it, some of it workable and some not, as simplicity inexorably heads toward complexity, and so on, unto a very high future of glorious beings and other things in the next trillion years.

The Eternal Basis appears to be barely there, in a shade of a sub-time, sub-space realm, as ‘noise’, the most possibly minuscule, in its mere twinges of virtual particles pairs, lest it violate the fundamental arts in they being any larger and perhaps thereby having to have parts. Perhaps then, the largest, such as out Cosmos, is so large because the smallest is so small. Coincidence or not, we exist at about the mid-point, a mote of dust being the exact middle.

I’ll call it the Existence Principle, since it has to be. Existence/being is always of a particular entity with some identity. Taken together the entities and their relations are Reality/Totality.

We have to give it some credit, not in regard to its becoming so, since it never did, as being ever, but as a given that it went forth to form things; so, in conjunction with the Existence Principle, but really at the same time with it there seem to be three more sub-principles in the credit assummed, namely: order, action, and simultaneous unity and plurality—the inter-relatedness of all the particulars being the underlying unity of Reality.

All of the above can be subsumed under the one Existence Principle, which principle cannot be exhausted or limited to any one beingness, which is why there is plurality; yet, all beingness is grounded in the unity of the Existence Principle.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

The Existence Principle thus is not limited spatiotemporally, being eternal, as a necessity, and so it is would be coterminal with everything temporary yet not consubstantial with unnecessary/contingent things, or to say it another way, it is imminent in the particulars yet transcendent of them.

Because the Existence Principle cannot go away, as eternal, it is inexhaustible and what keeps on giving and so it can originate and sustain a plurality of particulars such as you, me, atoms, trees, and all things, which, being grounded in the same principle, can have open relations to any other particulars.

Occam might even simply put it that there are only matter points and distances, with each of the matter points distinguishing itself from all the other ones by at least one distance relation that it bears to another matter point, so there are no indecernables.

While this relationalist ontology is parsimonious, as simple, basic, and uncomplicated, its representation seems to be difficult, what with so many things connected to other things, or as quantum entanglement, from either of which we’d hope to recover the basis for the typical quantities that we can find through measurement, such as mass, charge, spin, and more.

Space, then, is not something in itself, but only the span of the relations/connections.

As per Leibnitz, time derives from change, as time is the order of succession, so, there is no time without change; but change exhibits an order, and what makes this order temporal is that it is unique and has a direction.

Briefly summarized, relationalism is the belief that all relevant physical information, including Time, should be deducible by the relations between physical objects.

While atomism was apparently legitimized by the undeniable empirical successes of classical physics, nonetheless, developments in the conceptual foundations of contemporary physics — especially quantum physics — have shown to resist atomism in favor of holistic considerations.

Holism, as an emergent concept in the philosophy of quantum physics, arises from the behavior of entangled quantum systems and the associated conception of non-separability, as ‘non-locality’, casting doubts on the view of the world as consisting of concrete, unchangeable, self-contained particulars, being localized in spacetime, and existing independently of one another.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

I don't like the language you use to describe these because they borrow from too many diverse sources that differ on how they each define (or redefine) things unique to their philosophy.

I started a thread in other forums relating this to something more relative to anyone coming into the questions I believe you are trying to tackle. They deal with 'number' and so should be easier to relate by thinking of this in a logical way without reference to other works using uncertain backgrounds. Perhaps you could pretend that no one has any specific background you are already familiar with and define your terms more neutral and uniquely? My own thread before asked, "How many truths are there?", for instance. Then I broke it down into either 0, 1, or 00 (infinite). At least this classification others can relate to better without bias to some esoteric translation of religions or other people's philosophy.

I was already thinking of reintroducing this again here anyways. I'll open a thread on that title after this that you may find easier to relate your interpretation.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

I have just noticed your posts on this topic and submit the following comments.

The problem of the one and the many is perhaps the most difficult in metaphysics. It is even more difficult to present the issues involved in a clear and forthright manner. However, I will set forth, as plainly as I can, an analysis of the problem.

(1) THE QUESTION OF THE UNITY OF THE WORLD

(a) It cannot properly be said that the world is one by reason of its separation from other things, for the world, by definition, includes all that is. In other words, there are no things outside of the world from which it can be separated.

(b) The world cannot be bounded by “nothing,” for the latter refers to that which does not exist. But that which does not exist cannot serve as a boundary (or as anything else for that matter).

(c) One cannot escape this dilemma by asserting that the world is bounded by space and that space exists; for, if this were so, then space itself would be included in the world and as such could not serve as its boundary.

(d) Accordingly, the world must be unbounded. But this does not necessarily mean that it has an infinite volume [as Einstein pointed out]. Nonetheless, the question remains: How do we account for the unity of the world?

(e) If the world always remained the same, it would be a single eternal geometric. However, this would mean that nothing ever happens.

(f) If the world remained the same for some temporal period then became something else for another such period, it could only be a definite thing during these periods. In that case, the world could only be a separate entity through all time by reason of an immutable essence that allowed only periodic changes of a certain sort.

(g) If the world were in continuous transition, it could not be a definite thing during one temporal period and then become something else during another; for temporal extent is not fully determinable in a world in continuous transition. That is, all things would be inextricably conjoined in a single whole. More precisely, there would be only one definite thing—the world itself.

(h) In such case, the world could only be a single thing by reason of an immutable essence that allowed only certain continuous changes in its universal character.

(i) If the state of the world were either (f) or (g) above, then every change would be absolute in the sense that it would be a change in the condition of the world as a whole.

(2) THE QUESTION OF MULTIPLICITY WITHIN THE WORLD

(A) Condition (f) would allow multiplicity within the world. Condition (g) would not.

(B) The matter is therefore reduced to the question: Does anything in the world remain completely unchanged for any temporal period, however brief?

(C) If it does, then (f) would be the condition of the world. Otherwise, the world would be in condition (g). This seems to be an empirical and not a logical question.

(D) So that, if we know of nothing in the world that remains completely unchanged for any temporal period, we would seem to be justified in believing that the world is in condition (g) [with the proviso that such a belief is falsifiable].

(E) It would also seem that If we knew of even one instance of a thing within the world that remained completely unchanged for some period, however brief—then, the world would indubitably and unfalsifiably be in condition (f).

(F) However, condition (f) above raises the question: Is it possible that a thing within the world can be completely self-contained?

(G) In order for a thing within the world to be completely what it is and no part of anything else, it must have a “hard” border with a depth of naught; for It cannot remain completely what it is if (however slightly) it dissolves into something else at its borders.

(H) The fiction of a two-dimensional plane conceptually is meant to express the spatial containment of things within the world. The fiction of the instant [temporal point] is meant to determine a perfect interval within which a thing remains completely what it is with no trace of anything else.

(I) However, nothing in the world can be real if it has a thickness or temporal extent of naught. These things only exist in the mind. [One thinks of the example of high noon that conceptually excludes both morning and afternoon but in reality can do neither].

(J) If neither the spatial borders nor the temporal extent of a thing is fully determinable in the real world, it must be the case that the world is in continuous transition [condition (g)].

(K) The idea that the world has an immutable essence that allows only changes of a certain sort can be made comprehensibly by a simple analogy.

(L) The world may be thought of as analogous to (not equivalent to) a topological space in continuous transition, in that the fundamental properties of such a space remain the same regardless of the forms it may take.

(M) These forms are unlimited in number but limited in kind by the nature of the topology itself. In a certain sense, a topological space, like the world, remains the same even as it changes.

(N) Condition (e) is inconceivable, for it necessitates the conclusion that nothing ever changes.

Last edited by Neri on December 11th, 2016, 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

How about the meeting of the philosophy with science is that the periodic change is at the frequency of the Planck time, or less, and the immutable essence is that there must be change (stillness cannot be), as that like we have as the virtual particle pairs ever coming and going?

Should we better call "change" to be a "transformation" so as to indicate that there is a continuation of something?

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

From the philosophical perspective, to say that change occurs at the frequency of Planck time units says no more than it occurs at the frequently of seconds.

The fact that Planck time units are said to be natural and seconds arbitrary does not alter this fact. In either case, the temporal unit can only be fully determined by instants [temporal points] called the beginning and the end. Because such points have a duration of naught, they are only ideas and no part of the real world.

It cannot properly be said that change of any kind confers an immutable essence to the world, for change and immutability are opposites.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

I think there is fault with trying to wed empirical measurements with rationality to understand an idea of "unity" as being anything other than "idealised" speculation.

Basically I mean that mathematics does not own logic. It is a pure idealised version of logic. Whether or not this idealised mathematical logic "truly" presents a eidectic picture of reality or not will remain hidden and, for us as humans, essentially a meaningless conclusion if varified as "truth".

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

It is true that when rationality departs from experience, it results in nothing but speculation. However, it is an entirely different matter when experience itself is subjected to close logical scrutiny.

We have the experience that things within the world have hard spatial boundaries that hold in isolation whatever character they may have and allow them to be accurately measured (metrical properties).

My purpose has been to show that such a thing is no more than a mathematical fiction.

Accordingly, I have argued that all things in the world are inextricably intertwined so that only the world itself has identity of character (is one particular thing).

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

The immutable basis of/as All would have to be the Energy of Existence that constantly transforms into and maintains the transient, temporary forms made of the one energetic sub-structure. Reality, then, as energy, is its own designer, for there isn’t anything else.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

(a) It cannot properly be said that the world is one by reason of its separation from other things, for the world, by definition, includes all that is. In other words, there are no things outside of the world from which it can be separated.

(b) The world cannot be bounded by “nothing,” for the latter refers to that which does not exist. But that which does not exist cannot serve as a boundary (or as anything else for that matter).

(c) One cannot escape this dilemma by asserting that the world is bounded by space and that space exists; for, if this were so, then space itself would be included in the world and as such could not serve as its boundary.

(d) Accordingly, the world must be unbounded. But this does not necessarily mean that it has an infinite volume [as Einstein pointed out]. Nonetheless, the question remains: How do we account for the unity of the world?

With no absolutes outside of or before the World, then all that goes on must be relative to the world itself, even the forming of laws, suggesting that relationalism is the unity we are after. As such, with mostly relations, there are no enduring things that never change, which indicates that there are ever only processes happening. Time remains non emergent since it is of the casual, relational events, with all else being emergent.

There may be a few intrinsic properties, such as energy, momentum, and qualia. 'Nows' actually pass.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » December 12th, 2016, 5:58 pm wrote:The immutable basis of/as All would have to be the Energy of Existence that constantly transforms into and maintains the transient, temporary forms made of the one energetic sub-structure. Reality, then, as energy, is its own designer, for there isn’t anything else.

Here I present a cosmic paradox:If energy defines the universeBut will through entropy exhaust its stocks,What saves Existence once all things disperse?

The Heat Death vetoes subsequent events;Can Something be eventless, like a void?May Nothing's logical impedimentsDissolve when all dynamics are destroyed?

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

I wanted to share some thoughts, maybe wisdom. or not. Anyone is free to judge. Maybe something rare from me. Finding value is each one's "luck".

Dragonfly never stop seeking my friend!

This addition was meant for everyone.

It will probably be the last things i say in this site. But who knows? i might change my mind in the future(i often do :P but who cares.right?)

"All is one, and one is all." One of my end results. I wonder if i'll debunk it someday.(It is like comprehending art. Anyone makes his own judgement.) From simple to complicated and from complicated to the simple. Never ending circle, worlds apart. Don't think too much on this. Or do.I won't say too much or anything profound. Just simple truths. "Truths"/simple if you asked me. My writing can be peculiar and incorrect so i hope you can follow me. I don't know how simple is simple enough when writing. Or when explaining math. But i don't care much about the small things.

Even logic can be relative. Not an absolute one, but our own. Our own is just a product of interactions. Logic can be seen as immutable but we define logic with reason. Different ones produce different results in the same whole. but anyway. Many things logical can be contradicted. Such it is.Math is just a tool. The user makes its worth. Something making "sense" does not make that sense absolute. Any possible interaction can be a tool. It's all interactions, receivers and ...decoders when we are a part of it. The art of science. also any art.As some saying goes,it's difficult not being a frog inside a well watching the heaven sometimes. Big wells built-in.

To continue;The universe CAN make sense. I will say that if it was made, it was made to make sense. The universe itself as a whole. The perceivable existence, perceivable through means given by said existence. Who can make sense of it? that's a different question and each ones problem.

I will focus on the physical, as an entity bound by it's laws. Something i can personally talk about with certainty. We are "watching" a physical universe(as is). Interacting with it and bound by its laws.Here, Anything physical exists. But when we talk about "existence" in the natural world, with existence comes quantity. There can be no physical existence without quantity. There is existence and quantity, because of that there are quantitative values.

In the natural(physical) world, the infinite division of anything inside it(it being the physical existence) however negates existence and quantity in physical context. There is no quantification in the physical world when there is infinite division. Infinite division denies physical existence and vice versa. such it is.

We have existence and quantity. Regardless of the possibly unthinkable origin, of the "outside", within this natural world we have quantification and not infinite division.

So we have quantification.everything is quantified (energy, materials, etc....etc) *(skipped few steps here but such it is.)The physical world and anything under it, is quantified since it came to be regardless of how.It's needless to say that for a perfect circle to exist(and not only), its assumed that existence can be infinitely divided. I won't elaborate further on this or the implications but a clean line between imaginary and physical must be drawn. If true perfection is the goal. "The Truth of Existence is hidden in plain sight".

There is no need to include more than 3 dimensions to understand the physical existence as is. Space-time?

Time is a rate of physical change. Rate of interactions between physical entities no matter how "we" like to call them. And finally time is a result of the physical thingamajigs that makes things tick. (i just had to throw this here. scientific or not i said it.) Law of conservation of energy. There can be no instant physical infinity, the universe is physicaly finite at any given instant. Infinity can only exist one instant at a sequence(won't say time here) over finite number of sequences, "time" allowed :) At any given instant, the past never contained infinite instants. Instants on the other hand are not universal but local. Each instant/rate of change/interaction does not have to coincide with another but can(egg or chicken, time is relative). But you know, logic. "we" like what-ifs.Time is/happens within space. Because the physical entities are quantified. Space itself is space. My definition of space is physical in the contex of anything included in it.

Since there is something to be, there won't be stillness here, until it may. And it never happened.Till "then" there'll always be interactions and time to be measured. About stillness, It's not that there can't be, it can in the same context as it all came to be. This doesn't have to make sense. It's not why but why not. Also it depends on the observer. I always assume we are physical beings within our universe.(to take it up a notch, better give effort on finding how and what can affect the rate of interactions between physical entities. It's all in the same bowl of soup. time,space, gravity. Fact and a treat, some people did.) These few last lines may sound presumptious but it's not my problem. I state things as i found them to be.

Any and all physical interactions can be viewed as information, but physical existence is.. well physical. And physical is quantified and there are limits. Rate of interactions, rate of change, speed. Limits everywhere. Limits in information passing, limits in space. Everything is within this nice thing we call the universe. Of course since "we" don't know which physical "part" interacts with what and affects said rate of interactions, "we" are forced to use a 4th dimension(we can use a whole bunch of them, it's free) to make formulas out of it and try to understand it better. It's not the only way. Many paths lead to an end and many paths give an answer. We can computize the universe, we can make higher dimensions, we can make many complicated things to analyze it, we can imagine even more. But in the end, the bottom of the perceivable is physical interactions. Many will doubt though.

Einstein is quoted to say make things as simple as possible but not simpler. But let me tell you, The Simplest is the most difficult to achieve. You first have to understand the complications. But "we" are getting there, not too far now.

time IS quantified. Any measurement or product of interactions between quantified units will be quantified. Any change or rate of change has sequence and physical existences tend to be limited by their own, physicalness! And never ever forget that to "observe", you also have to be interacted with.

Built-in wells indeed.

One last thing. Lack of information is ..magic. As people knew about electricity thousands of years ago, you should know that there are quite a few magicians today.

*i used the word "matter" with an abstract meaning as in anything that can physically exist and is part of physical existence. Don't have to delve too deep.

"Loops within loops. Sequence. The simplest organized. All is one, and one is all." simple made complicated, to be made simple. Not why but why not.

All the above are some personal findings. Rumblings of an eccentric man with subjective value.Take care thinkers!

*edit: Maybe i should have pointed something i thought obvious. Anything being quantified means that there is an absolute minimum that any quantity can be divided into, Perfectly. Real and not Naught, in our case.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 1:26 am wrote:Unity and multiplicity are each unavoidable, so there can be no unbreachable abyss dividing them; thus they both (seemingly paradoxically) coexist somehow, and this has to be accounted for.

The unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, holistically and in detail revolving.

The relations among the relata of substantial entities/things are more fundamental, ontologically, than the continuant things, yet, without the enduring things there can be no relations.

Totality, as all that exists as reality, has relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.

Presented Argument:

1) Unity observes reality as strictly a self-mirroring cause through which all extensions of the 1 are merely effects as approximations of this unity in itself. These effects in themselves are further causes so what we understand of Unity is merely a causality through structure in which this structure through effect manifests reality as one through a mirror effect that is infinite in both form and function. Hence Unity is causality through mirroring in which any percieved multiplicity is approximation akin to "randomness" as the limit of unity. Unity can be summated as a mirror effect through causality and randomness.

2) Multiplicity is the relations of parts which exist through further parts with these parts being an approximation of unity through movement as time. These parts are both active, localized as parts, and passive, unlocalized potential parts. These active parts move through the potential parts, with the potential parts being the negative barrier through which the actual parts move. The actual parts, which move through the negative barrier as potential parts, allows the potential movement to exist where the relation of the "actual parts" form the angulature of space through which the active may move. In these respect active parts relating provide the barrier of potential parts in which they move, much in the same manner two relative lines create a negative barrier as the "interior of the angle", through which the actual lines may move. In these respects, multiplicity can be observed as a form of relational ism where the parts, premised at the core being "linear dimensions", must continually fold an relate through each other in zero dimensional space in order to exist as being through movement amidst nothingness.

3) Unity being the summation of multiplicity, and multiplicity being the approximation of unity observes a dualism of no-movement and movement which synthesizes a neutral element as "dimensions". These dimensions are strictly spatial boundaries (both abstract and physical) which give structure to reality as reality itself. In this manner dimensions are merely medians for further dimensions, through a continual produce of synthesis, and can be interpreted as "symbols" or "axioms" in themselves considering a dimension as a structured (hence measured reality) is inseperable from consciousness itself. For example can a line be observed as either empirical or abstract? Most likely both with the line being both and neither, or inherently "neutral" grounds through which reality manifests itself. In these respects this "dimensional synthesis", as the triadic part of the dualism of unity/multiplicity maintains in itself a dualism of the "limits" which give boundary to reality and the "no-limits" (as possible limits) through which limits both begin and end. In this manner synthesis is a triadic nature of dimensions through limits and no-limits.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 1:26 am wrote:Unity and multiplicity are each unavoidable, so there can be no unbreachable abyss dividing them; thus they both (seemingly paradoxically) coexist somehow, and this has to be accounted for.

The unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, holistically and in detail revolving.

The relations among the relata of substantial entities/things are more fundamental, ontologically, than the continuant things, yet, without the enduring things there can be no relations.

Totality, as all that exists as reality, has relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.

Presented Argument:

1) Unity observes reality as strictly a self-mirroring cause through which all extensions of the 1 are merely effects as approximations of this unity in itself. These effects in themselves are further causes so what we understand of Unity is merely a causality through structure in which this structure through effect manifests reality as one through a mirror effect that is infinite in both form and function. Hence Unity is causality through mirroring in which any perceived multiplicity is approximation akin to "randomness" as the limit of unity. Unity can be summated as a mirror effect through causality and randomness.

1a) All cause and effect is an observation of boundaries, with these boundaries in themselves being founded in space at both the abstract and physical level.

1b) With all cause and effect extending from space, as a foundation for all boundaries, the observation of a mirror effect (as replicative symmetry) observes a movement of space through repetition. Space and movement are inseparable as space exists if and only if there are boundaries to form it, with these boundaries in themselves being composed of space. Space and movement, under these terms, are synonymous.

1c) Cause and effect existing through movement under a mirror effect observes cause and effect having direction qualities in the respect they are directed. Movement cannot exist without direction as movement is direction.

1d) Considering all cause manifests itself through effect, with all effect being a cause in itself, causality is unified through its own movement through itself. Considering all cause projects itself through effect as a further cause, causality is unified under an intradimensional structure.

1f) If all causality is directed into itself through itself, this would imply some deficiency in the cause itself as direction implies a degree of movement with this movement having an actual (localized) and potential (non-localized) nature. In simpler terms something cannot move unless there is something or somewhere to move too.

1g) However as all effect is an extension of a cause, with the cause moving itself through itself, and any percieve multiplicity of the whole cause in itself being an approximation of the whole cause, the cause in itself is unified under the effect as merely an approximation (yet extension of the cause; therefore cause itself). In simpler terms the effect is the limit of the cause as a cause in itself; hence cause is its own limit.

1h) Cause as its own limit, with this cause being spatial direction observes the cause as fundamentally 1 dimensional. Instinct first implies all cause and effect to have a strictly linear structure, however the extradimensional nature of the line as projecting away from its own source causes a contradiction in terms considering cause moves through itself as itself.

1i) Any linear structure, summated under that which is extradimensional, requires further lines to relate towards and through. This would require the lines to "fold" through themselves with any "actual" line (being a localized form of spatial direction) existing if and only if their is potential space through which the line can fold (non-localized space). This requires the line to exist as a part which must relate to other parts and an inherent deficiency occurs in "actualization" (hence unity) as a "potential" space must exist which in itself is non-localized hence "non-being". The line, considering its must exist through further lines, in itself is a part or unit hence observes multiplicity.

1j) If causality is viewed under a unified whole, this multiplicity observed under the nature of extra dimensional is merely an approximation of this whole, hence is not the whole in itself. In these respects, the origin of all boundaries is intra dimensional in the respect it is directed through itself as itself with no division.

1k) This unity, lacking in any multiplicity, is not finite considering what is finite (as a perceived multiplicity) exists through relations to other finite realities. This unity has nothing to relate to as it cannot relate as a part of a whole, considering it is the whole. In a separate respect this unity is the foundation for limit, but not limit in itself, considering limit observes in one respect a "deficiency". This unity is infinite, or lacking in limit as deficiency, as pure dimensionality.

1l) Considering the extra dimensional nature of the line observes a multiplicity as a unit which must relate to further units, this unified whole contains as an approximation but is not limited to the line.

1m) Considering this unity as pure "movement as direction" contains no deficiency due to its infinite nature, it has no form in one respect as it has not limit except pure randomness as deficiency. Yet paradoxically it contains spatial dimensions in the respect it is intradimensional and is pure direction as movement.

1n) The one cause as both form and no form, at the same time in different respects, can only be summated under spatial terms as a 1 dimensional point that exists through itself as itself.

1o) All existence occurring through this one dimensional point, observes a multiplicity in forms as approximation of the whole, as strictly imaginary in the respect it is an "image" or "symbol" which is an extension of further symbols. This approximation, as a limit, occurs as a negative dimensional boundary, which exists dually to the 1 dimensional line as a dimension that does not exist on its own terms but rather as an observation of a perceived connection.

1p) Considering the 1d point has no deficiency, and any forms are merely extensions of this one cause, with the forms themselves being composed of parts which in turn are further extensions of this one cause, the negative dimensional boundary as a -1d line observes a percieved approximation of forms as a foundational structure (much in the same manner the line is a foundational structure) of approximation.

1q) The -1d line observes a connection between objects where the 1d line cannot observe this connection considering the 0d points its "extends" (if that is the correct word) between are not phenomena in and of themselves. As a connection between 1d points (which exist as a 1d point), this -1d line is an approximation of unity as a limit akin to randomness as a deficiency in structure. The -1d line as a deficiency is akin to randomness.

2) Multiplicity is the relations of parts which exist through further parts with these parts being an approximation of unity through movement as time. These parts are both active, localized as parts, and passive, unlocalized potential parts. These active parts move through the potential parts, with the potential parts being the negative barrier through which the actual parts move. The actual parts, which move through the negative barrier as potential parts, allows the potential movement to exist where the relation of the "actual parts" form the angulature of space through which the active may move. In these respect active parts relating provide the barrier of potential parts in which they move, much in the same manner two relative lines create a negative barrier as the "interior of the angle", through which the actual lines may move. In these respects, multiplicity can be observed as a form of relational ism where the parts, premised at the core being "linear dimensions", must continually fold an relate through each other in zero dimensional space in order to exist as being through movement amidst nothingness.

2a)

3) Unity being the summation of multiplicity, and multiplicity being the approximation of unity observes a dualism of no-movement and movement which synthesizes a neutral element as "dimensions". These dimensions are strictly spatial boundaries (both abstract and physical) which give structure to reality as reality itself. In this manner dimensions are merely medians for further dimensions, through a continual produce of synthesis, and can be interpreted as "symbols" or "axioms" in themselves considering a dimension as a structured (hence measured reality) is inseperable from consciousness itself. For example can a line be observed as either empirical or abstract? Most likely both with the line being both and neither, or inherently "neutral" grounds through which reality manifests itself. In these respects this "dimensional synthesis", as the triadic part of the dualism of unity/multiplicity maintains in itself a dualism of the "limits" which give boundary to reality and the "no-limits" (as possible limits) through which limits both begin and end. In this manner synthesis is a triadic nature of dimensions through limits and no-limits.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 11:11 am wrote:That quark-gluon interactions make for 95% of the proton’s mass shows us how much relations count. There are also wavicles proposed, with both wave- and particle-like aspects.

I have to say this is a rather dubious example and shows no such thing. To a physicist the argument sounds very strange because it is entirely due to the peculiarity of quark interactions. For many interactions in the universe the opposite is the case and the individual components have a larger total mass and the interaction energy is negative. Therefore this argument sounds very contrived. It is like pointing at clowns hitting each other which make people laugh and conclude that humor is derived from violence.

But with this one small objection... having read the first two of your posts in the thread so far, I find myself pretty much in agreement with gist of it.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 1:26 am wrote:Unity and multiplicity are each unavoidable, so there can be no unbreachable abyss dividing them; thus they both (seemingly paradoxically) coexist somehow, and this has to be accounted for.

The unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, holistically and in detail revolving.

The relations among the relata of substantial entities/things are more fundamental, ontologically, than the continuant things, yet, without the enduring things there can be no relations.

Totality, as all that exists as reality, has relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.

Presented Argument:

1) Unity observes reality as strictly a self-mirroring cause through which all extensions of the 1 are merely effects as approximations of this unity in itself. These effects in themselves are further causes so what we understand of Unity is merely a causality through structure in which this structure through effect manifests reality as one through a mirror effect that is infinite in both form and function. Hence Unity is causality through mirroring in which any percieved multiplicity is approximation akin to "randomness" as the limit of unity. Unity can be summated as a mirror effect through causality and randomness.

2) Multiplicity is the relations of parts which exist through further parts with these parts being an approximation of unity through movement as time. These parts are both active, localized as parts, and passive, unlocalized potential parts. These active parts move through the potential parts, with the potential parts being the negative barrier through which the actual parts move. The actual parts, which move through the negative barrier as potential parts, allows the potential movement to exist where the relation of the "actual parts" form the angulature of space through which the active may move. In these respect active parts relating provide the barrier of potential parts in which they move, much in the same manner two relative lines create a negative barrier as the "interior of the angle", through which the actual lines may move. In these respects, multiplicity can be observed as a form of relational ism where the parts, premised at the core being "linear dimensions", must continually fold an relate through each other in zero dimensional space in order to exist as being through movement amidst nothingness.

Text appears to be space out in odd manner, tried various manner to fix adjust it without effect. Still readable and ordered, but spacing is off.

2a) All parts are both composed of parts and compose other parts.

2b) These parts exist as the boundaries through which further external and internal parts move.

2c) All parts, considering they are both composed of parts and compose further parts, act as:

2c1) The movement of the parts they are composed of, hence are a localization of actual relations to the parts which compose them. In these respects, as a summation of moving parts, the part is in itself actualized movement. Actuality can be observed as a boundary which forms a reality through its position in space (or locality). The definition of "actuality" and "locality", under these terms is synonymous and maintain a circulatory nature.

2c2) The movement of the parts they composed, hence are a localization of actual relations to the parts which they compose. In these respects, as a derivative of a larger part, the part exists through its relation to further parts with these relations in turn allows this part, as a derivative, to exist. Actuality can be observed as a boundary of movement through relation which forms a reality by its relations as positions relative to other parts (or locality). Locality is a position of a part which exists through its relations to further parts, which these relations in themselves being movements.

2c3) All positions of a part in space as a space, in themselves are movements considering a a position (or locality) in itself is actualized by the movements which it is both composed of and composes. A position hence is a medial point of movement in the respect that all internal and external movements manifest it as a potential locality in one respect as it is potential unity from which a whole is derived from while simultaneously a potential unity through which multiple partssummate under as a group of relations.

2c4) All positions of space, as a locality which composes a part for what it is as a part, maintain a nature of actual movement in the respect that are a localization of relations which exist if and only if they relate to further parts which are actual movements as the localization of relations. Theysimultaneously maintain a dual potential nature as observed in point "2c3" in one respect, while acting as a further negative barrier of non-localized potentiality for other actual movements to existthrough and from. A locality, as a part through position as a movement, maintains an inherent lackof form in the respect that it cannot exist on its own terms.

2d) As boundaries which form the parts are parts in themselves and must relate to eachother, throughmovements with these movements, as relations, necessitating an inherent element of "direction". Movement cannot exist unless it is directed, and what is directed requires movement hence directionis a form in itself as a boundary.

2e) Boundaries, having an inherent directional nature, are dimensions in themselves considering they giveform through an inherent division of a property into multiple parts or by observing division of"nothingness" as an act of movement through a void in which being, through movement, occurs.

2f) The boundary as a dimension is the base unit from which all form are both summated and derived. As a unit the dimension takes on a quantitative nature of 1 and qualitatively a nature of spatial direction. In this manner the boundary is based under a unit of 1 dimension as 1 direction.

2g) The boundaries which give structure to all forms are based upon a 1 dimensional nature. Considering these boundaries act as parts which are both composed of parts and compose further parts (as the boundary is both composed of and composed other boundaries) they exist through relations.

2h) The 1 dimensional boundary, as a unit of relation that exists through relation as relation by an inherentmultiplicity can be observed as movement through direction. Considering this movement as direction, exists through relation of further movements as directions, this 1 dimensional boundary must be extra dimensional in nature considering it must project past itself through the relations necessary to maintain it.

2h1) All parts exist if and only if they relate to another part past itself. Any form of self-relation of the part, considering a part cannot exist on its own terms, would cause the part to individuateinto further parts through a simultaneous act of multiplication and division through which the part could relate as parts, hence exist through movement. In these respects the part, mustmaintain an extradimensional nature of projecting, or "being directed", pasts its origins if it isto move, hence "exist".

2i) The 1 dimensional boundary, as extra dimensional, must premise its existence the base unit of the lineas extradimensional space which exists as a unit.

2j) The line as the base unit of all boundaries and forms, exists through a process of folding through itselfin 0d space to form the line as a micro angle in one respect while existing as a localized "line" itself atthe macro level whose relations, through folding itself as itself, manifest the "angle" as potential localityin which the line moves. The line exists through a process of folding, with this folding process inseparable from the abstract and physical properties it not just defines but manifests. The line is a conscious form of measurement in the respect it continually measures itself through itself, in the process creating forms, and is a foundational structure of consciousness.

3) Unity being the summation of multiplicity, and multiplicity being the approximation of unity observes a dualism of no-movement and movement which synthesizes a neutral element as "dimensions". These dimensions are strictly spatial boundaries (both abstract and physical) which give structure to reality as reality itself. In this manner dimensions are merely medians for further dimensions, through a continual produce of synthesis, and can be interpreted as "symbols" or "axioms" in themselves considering a dimension as a structured (hence measured reality) is inseperable from consciousness itself. For example can a line be observed as either empirical or abstract? Most likely both with the line being both and neither, or inherently "neutral" grounds through which reality manifests itself. In these respects this "dimensional synthesis", as the triadic part of the dualism of unity/multiplicity maintains in itself a dualism of the "limits" which give boundary to reality and the "no-limits" (as possible limits) through which limits both begin and end. In this manner synthesis is a triadic nature of dimensions through limits and no-limits.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 11:11 am wrote:That quark-gluon interactions make for 95% of the proton’s mass shows us how much relations count. There are also wavicles proposed, with both wave- and particle-like aspects.

I have to say this is a rather dubious example and shows no such thing. To a physicist the argument sounds very strange because it is entirely due to the peculiarity of quark interactions. For many interactions in the universe the opposite is the case and the individual components have a larger total mass and the interaction energy is negative. Therefore this argument sounds very contrived. It is like pointing at clowns hitting each other which make people laugh and conclude that humor is derived from violence.

But with this one small objection... having read the first two of your posts in the thread so far, I find myself pretty much in agreement with gist of it.

On the other hand... may the point isn't how much of the mass derives the relationship (whether positive or negative) but the fact that it depends on the relationship at all.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

mitchellmckain » April 25th, 2018, 8:46 pm wrote:On the other hand... may the point isn't how much of the mass derives the relationship (whether positive or negative) but the fact that it depends on the relationship at all.

Crap! you would think that when my response is so short I could at least type it correctly!

On the other hand... maybe the point isn't how much of the mass derives from the relationship (whether positive or negative), but the fact that it depends on the relationship at all.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

DragonFly » November 5th, 2016, 1:26 am wrote:Unity and multiplicity are each unavoidable, so there can be no unbreachable abyss dividing them; thus they both (seemingly paradoxically) coexist somehow, and this has to be accounted for.

The unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, holistically and in detail revolving.

The relations among the relata of substantial entities/things are more fundamental, ontologically, than the continuant things, yet, without the enduring things there can be no relations.

Totality, as all that exists as reality, has relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.

Presented Argument:

1) Unity observes reality as strictly a self-mirroring cause through which all extensions of the 1 are merely effects as approximations of this unity in itself. These effects in themselves are further causes so what we understand of Unity is merely a causality through structure in which this structure through effect manifests reality as one through a mirror effect that is infinite in both form and function. Hence Unity is causality through mirroring in which any percieved multiplicity is approximation akin to "randomness" as the limit of unity. Unity can be summated as a mirror effect through causality and randomness.

2) Multiplicity is the relations of parts which exist through further parts with these parts being an approximation of unity through movement as time. These parts are both active, localized as parts, and passive, unlocalized potential parts. These active parts move through the potential parts, with the potential parts being the negative barrier through which the actual parts move. The actual parts, which move through the negative barrier as potential parts, allows the potential movement to exist where the relation of the "actual parts" form the angulature of space through which the active may move. In these respect active parts relating provide the barrier of potential parts in which they move, much in the same manner two relative lines create a negative barrier as the "interior of the angle", through which the actual lines may move. In these respects, multiplicity can be observed as a form of relational ism where the parts, premised at the core being "linear dimensions", must continually fold an relate through each other in zero dimensional space in order to exist as being through movement amidst nothingness.

3) Unity being the summation of multiplicity, and multiplicity being the approximation of unity observes a dualism of no-movement and movement which synthesizes a neutral element as "dimensions". These dimensions are strictly spatial boundaries (both abstract and physical) which give structure to reality as reality itself. In this manner dimensions are merely medians for further dimensions, through a continual produce of synthesis, and can be interpreted as "symbols" or "axioms" in themselves considering a dimension as a structured (hence measured reality) is inseperable from consciousness itself. For example can a line be observed as either empirical or abstract? Most likely both with the line being both and neither, or inherently "neutral" grounds through which reality manifests itself. In these respects this "dimensional synthesis", as the triadic part of the dualism of unity/multiplicity maintains in itself a dualism of the "limits" which give boundary to reality and the "no-limits" (as possible limits) through which limits both begin and end. In this manner synthesis is a triadic nature of dimensions through limits and no-limits.

The metaphysical grist of Quantum Theory does not pivot on a inescapable plurality. Rather the metaphysical pivot point in QM is that it suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at time t. The universe is not a grand machine made of "gears" whose orientations are objectively determined at any given instant. Even if the universe were "one singular substance" (lets say) that substance would not be in a particular configuration/state at time t.

Our entire 3000 year old conceptualizations of "material" are wrong. It does not matter to this topic how many heavy sweaty guys behind a keyboard puffing away on a cigarette insist they cannot "visualize it". In 2018 AD, we have very good reasons to believe this is true.

Some quantum gravity theories strive to be relational by attempting to get rid of absolute space and time. Space was always a problem in that it had to be impossibly infinite in whatever quantity it had ascribed to it.

Holism, as an emergent concept in the philosophy of quantum physics, arises from the behavior of entangled quantum systems and the associated conception of non-separability, as ‘non-locality’, casting doubts on the view of the world as consisting of concrete, unchangeable, self-contained particulars, being localized in spacetime, and existing independently of one another.

Re: Unity in Multiplicity

hyksos » May 22nd, 2018, 3:10 am wrote:The metaphysical grist of Quantum Theory does not pivot on a inescapable plurality. Rather the metaphysical pivot point in QM is that it suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at time t. The universe is not a grand machine made of "gears" whose orientations are objectively determined at any given instant.

The world is not made of something that is, as things/entities/substances, but is made up of events/happenings/processes/occurrences that do not last. There is continual transformation and so nothing is permanent in time. There is no stasis/stillness in a motionless time. Not at all a collection of things but a collection of events not ordered in time.

The sciences tell of how events happen, not how things are, and so we come to understand the becomings/relations, not the being.

Fields and their manifested particles are all there is; the fields are all on top of each other, which is what ‘covariant’ means. The energy of fields can only take on certain values—their quanta.

So, "fields and particles" can be reduced to just ‘covariant quantum fields’. 'All' is a swarm of the relations of elementary field events.

Farewell fixed space and time: just as the space continuum full of things goes away, so too does a flowing continuous time, during the course of which events happen.

The metaphysical grist of Quantum Theory does not pivot on a inescapable plurality. Rather the metaphysical pivot point in QM is that it suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at time t. The universe is not a grand machine made of "gears" whose orientations are objectively determined at any given instant. Even if the universe were "one singular substance" (lets say) that substance would not be in a particular configuration/state at time t.

I think I understand what you mean, but the first and last sentences need work in order to be stated correctly. Scientists consider a superposition to be a particular objective state. Say rather that QM tells us that the universe does not consist of point particles with particular positions and velocities. So the billiard ball conception of the universe is certainly unworkable. Furthermore you can grant that the universe is rather machine-like on a large scale, but yes QT does indeed throw a wrench into works of the this conception if you try to take it too far. In particular the rug has been pulled out from beneath Laplace's demon.

The metaphysical grist of Quantum Theory does not pivot on a inescapable plurality. Rather the metaphysical pivot point in QM is that it suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at time t. The universe is not a grand machine made of "gears" whose orientations are objectively determined at any given instant. Even if the universe were "one singular substance" (lets say) that substance would not be in a particular configuration/state at time t.

I think I understand what you mean, but the first and last sentences need work in order to be stated correctly. Scientists consider a superposition to be a particular objective state. Say rather that QM tells us that the universe does not consist of point particles with particular positions and velocities. So the billiard ball conception of the universe is certainly unworkable. Furthermore you can grant that the universe is rather machine-like on a large scale, but yes QT does indeed throw a wrench into works of the this conception if you try to take it too far. In particular the rug has been pulled out from beneath Laplace's demon.

What 3000 year old conceptualization of "material"? It seems to me, our conception of "material" is something that has be constantly changing and with greater rapidity as we approach the present.

If the universe does not consist of point particles, and the human consciousness is an extension of the universe by default considering it's material components, how does one explain the act of localization itself?

Considering observation may be interpreted as the means of localization, we may be left with "a" possibility that consciousness is a localized event in the material universe.